Isi Leibler: KUDOS TO FOXMAN

For some months I have been highly critical of the failure of the American Jewish establishment leadership to speak out against repeated hostile policies and statements emanating from various branches of the Obama administration.

I also expressed concern regarding a joint public statement issued by Abraham Foxman, head of the ADL, and his American Jewish Committee counterpart David Harris, which many perceived as an attempt to stifle all political discussion related to Israel in the forthcoming presidential election. If implemented, it would have embargoed both positive or negative comment and discourse concerning policies adopted by parties and candidates in relation to Israel.

Last week, we were bombarded by three separate, appallingly biased and offensive statementsconcerning Israel, expressed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman.

Not surprisingly, the ZOA and Jewish Republicans vehemently condemned these outbursts, but most of the Jewish leadership once again responded with deafening silence.

However, unlike his other Jewish establishment colleagues, Foxman, the effervescent ADL head, spoke out with vigor and dignity, condemning the offensive remarks and calling on the administration to distance itself from all three outbursts.

In a blazing op-ed in the Huffington Post, Foxman related specifically to Panetta’s remarks blaming Israel for the deteriorating situation with Turkey and Egypt. He stressed that Panetta’s remarks were not merely “inaccurate” but “disturbing and potentially dangerous," adding that “finding fault with Israel at a time of great instability and uncertainty in the region is particularly distressing.” He called on the White House to issue “a clear repudiation” because “if the secretary’s remarks are allowed to stand, this is likely to set in motion events that will exacerbate existing problems … and add fuel to the fire of an already raging region."

In a subsequent interview with the JTA, Foxman also condemned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks castigating Israel’s treatment of women making odious and utterly baseless analogies with the manner in which Iranians treat their women.

Foxman pointed out that, “This is a secretary of state who certainly doesn’t go out to the Arab Muslim world and criticize them for inequalities." “Sure," he said, “Israel is not perfect, human rights could use improvement, but my God, in comparison, I think it is inappropriate, it’s excessive." He described Clinton’s remarks as being “out of line."

Foxman noted that the remarks from all three members of the Obama administration reflected a common theme that came to the heart of the “problem we’ve had with this administration." The three of them are “putting all the onus on Israel and that’s with Panetta, with Hillary and with the ambassador” (referring to the U.S. ambassador to Belgium whose offensive remarks implied that Muslim anti-Semitism was a by-product of Israeli intransigence in the Middle East).

He was careful not to ignore the positive aspects of the administration’s attitude toward Israel such as the ongoing defense commitments which have brought the U.S.-Israeli military alliance to newfound heights. But, he pointed out that the attitude toward Israel is “bifurcated” and the administration has regrettably also “done more to politically distance itself from Israel."

This is not the first time that Foxman spoke out as a lone voice amongst mainstream American Jewish leaders. In the early stages of the Obama administration, he was the only Jewish establishment spokesman to criticize the president when he initially displayed his bias against the Israeli government. In August 2009, in a full-page advertisement in the New York Times, Foxman called on Obama to recognize that "the problem is not the settlements. It is Arab rejection … Mr. President, it's time to stop pressurizing our vital friend and ally."

In March 2010, Foxman was again one of the few Jewish leaders to condemn the histrionics displayed by the president and secretary of state against Jewish construction in the residential areas of Jewish East Jerusalem. He even went so far as to propose a protest march on Washington.

Nobody could accuse Foxman of being a hawk in relation to Israel and over the past six months he made a number of statements with which many of his less dovish Jewish constituents took great umbrage. But this does not negate the fact that when the chips were down and he believed red lines were being crossed in relation to the Jewish state, he was one of the few willing to courageously speak up against the Obama administration.

Once again, despite the fact that it may create major problems with those of his supporters who still blindly endorse all aspects of the Obama administration's policies, the former child Holocaust survivor who rose to become head of one of U.S. Jewry’s foremost organizations again proved to be a trailblazer. One can only hope that his courageous response will serve as an example for other Jewish leaders to emulate.

Rena Baldinger: IN ISRAELI CULTURE SILENCE IS GOLDEN

​The Full Five Finger Gesture is what I call the hand signal that is common to all Israelis. The tip of the thumb is pressed to the gathered tips of all other fingers. No words needed, just a little oomph of the hand. Language here is not just about words; it’s about body language, signals, and oftentimes silence that can be integral to the fibers of a culture.

​Although I considered myself pretty much fluent in Hebrew as a result of an intense studying, I was still nervous about moving here thanks to the language barrier and cultural differences. To say the least, things are very different in Israel than it is in New York, let alone America. However, I embraced the challenge of learning the nuances that define Israeli language and culture. How frustrating it was when I realized that Israelis don’t just have a different language with a different alphabet and opposite writing directions; they also have so many specific distinctions that is similar to learning a whole new language all on its own. I knew I was in for a real learning experience.

The Full Five Finger Gesture is just one of many examples of the often “lost-for-words” language. Raising one’s arms all the way to the heavens as if praying on the High Holy days and yelling incomprehensible gibberish at an unbelievable rate is another. A pretty popular one is honking on the horn, slamming on the brakes, and sticking one’s hands out the window with obscene gestures—simultaneously. Thus I learned a fundamental lesson; every culture has its own idiosyncrasies, its own wordless language that practically defines it; you actually don’t have to say a word.

The culture that Israel has created for itself is generally seen as rude, possibly violent, out of line and impatient. Oblivious foreign victims such as myself simply have to maneuver their way through and try to survive the onslaught of a whole new language within a language.

​Yet another “language” that’s not really language (i.e. words being spoken) is silence. I learned this specific way of communicating on a Friday night out walking with a friend. Although it was a half hour walk and women usually have an intense need to talk two words per footstep, we said nothing to each other—we simply enjoyed the fresh air and each other’s company. As we reached the point where we had to part ways, my friend turned to me and said, “I love knowing that I have a friend who I don’t always need to be talking to. I’ve never felt more comfortable.” After that, I set about thinking hard about what that meant. Sometimes not saying anything can speak volumes; sometimes a long and strained silence can be a code for: “I want to yell as loud as possible!!”

The Jewish people as a united culture know that the gift of speech is not something to be taken lightly, and that many times the wise and correct thing to do is to remain silent. Sometimes silence defines us as a people, and other times, it’s a lack thereof that defines us—when we cry out at the injustice of a certain law or action or country…when we take a stand for ourselves and show that we can speak the diplomatic language, the presidential language, or the lay-people language. But what ultimately characterizes us as a people and as a culture is our ability to make use of the words of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi: “The best medicine of all is silence,” and the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel (Avos 1:17): “All my days I have been raised among the Sages and I have found nothing better for oneself than silence.”

So whether it’s the language with no words that the inhabitants of Israel are famous for, or whether it’s the art of silence that the Jewish people as a whole embody, both are crucial to the expression of culture that is created through these unique “languages.”

Josephine Levin: IN TIMES OF WAR, TURN TOWARDS G-D FOR SALVATION

​Daily we are bombarded with two messages. One message is that Iran that has publicly called for the total destruction of Israel and the Jewish people has or will soon have nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The second message is whatever Israel decides to do–just do not strike at Iran!

​Last year John Bolton, the former Bush administration ambassador to the UN, said Israel had only until August 21, 2010 to stop Iran. This was the date that Russia would begin unloading nuclear fuel rods into the Iranian reactor. After that Mr. Bolton claimed the situation would be at the point of no return because any attack that would occur after the rods were unloaded into the reactor would cause radiation to escape into the atmosphere and possibly into the waters of the Persian Gulf. Mr. Bolton claimed that Israel's prior strikes on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak 1981and the attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 took place before the nuclear fuel rods were unloaded into the reactors.

​Has Israel really had the opportunity to strike at Iran but missed it? Here are the facts: Since 1991 the US has operated a no-fly zone over Iraq and no one can enter these skies without the express permission of the United States, So If Israel missed the opportunity to strike at Iran before it would be too late, then who in fact is to blame for this? Surely Mr. Bolton must have known that Israel would need the permission of the United States to fly over Iraq to attack Iran. The shortest route for Israel to strike at Iran is to fly over Iraq. At the end of this month the official agreement between the US and Iraq of 2008 that allows for this nofly zone is due to expire and there is speculation that if the nofly zone over Iraq is removed then Israel might strike at Iran. Is it a coincidence that this nofly zone has been in operation until the Iranians have or are about to have a nuclear bomb? Iran has stated that no matter who attacks them they will retaliate against Israel.

​During the Gulf War of 1991 Israel was attacked by more than 40 scuds fired by Saddam Hussein from Iraq and not once was Israel able to retaliate because the United States would not supply Israel with "friendly" codes for the US AIWACS so that Israeli planes would not be shot down over the Gulf. Those of us who were here during the Gulf War and spent a lot of time in sealed rooms, putting gas masks on our children, while our country was not allowed to defend itself will never forget this. Israeli planes apparently took off at least 5 times to defend our nation that was under attack by Iraqi SCUD missiles and Moshe Ahrens who was then Minister of Defense revealed that he had to call our planes back, as they would have been shot down by American forces over the Gulf. We were like sitting ducks with no one to defend us except the Lord our G-d, the Creator of the universe, and in fact so many miracles took place at that time that even the most secular and non-believing Israelis began to take notice. Only one person was directly killed by a SCUD. In a Ramat Gan apartment that was totally destroyed was found an infant lying unharmed in a crib - like Daniel in the Lion's Den. There were many more stories of miracles that took place in Israel during the Gulf War.

​We in Israel see that with few exceptions the entire world has moved against us and anti-Semitism is as high if not higher than the years preceding the Second World War. Only 66 years after the Holocaust the world is setting us up for another one. In the entire European Union we have only one friend Czechoslovakia. Italy has also been one of our only friends but this may change with the new political realities in Italy.

​During the Second World War Hitler's African Corps under his general Rommel were only a few hours away from entering Jerusalem. Rabbis in Jerusalem called on the people en masse to enter the synagogues and pray that Jerusalem and Israel would not fall to the evil Nazis and their prayers were answered. Rommel's forces were defeated by Montgomery November 11, 1942 and in fact it has been recorded that all kinds of weather also helped stop Rommel at the Battle of El Alamein in Egypt.

​I do not know what the Rock of Israel is going to do to protect us but Iran is one of the most seismically active regions in the world and has had and can have major earthquakes of mass destruction. Also, punishing weather, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. are being experienced by many of the nations that seek to destroy us. The LORD our G-d also twice created a no-fly zone over European skies with the eruption of the Icelandic volcano. In 2010 Japan agreed to build 5 earthquake proof nuclear reactors in Iran. In March, 2011 Japan was struck by a major earthquake and tsunami that damaged the so called earthquake proof Japanese reactors and there was a meltdown at Fukashima which is still not under control.

​Iran has stated more than once that no matter who strikes at them they will retaliate against Israel.

According to our biblical prophesies we have been brought back here by HaShem from the four corners of the world to prepare for the coming of the Kingdom of G-d on the earth and not to be exterminated by those who hate us. As a woman of faith in the Kadosh Baruch Hu I can sleep at night here in Jerusalem putting my trust totally in HaShem. A G-d who parted the Red Sea can do anything. In truth we can depend on no one but our Father in heaven.

​

Yechezkel Gordon: 2012 ELECTION COVERAGE: The Latest Polls, Upcoming Debates & Primary Info, and Exclusive Analysis

Upcoming Republican Primaries:
Iowa Caucus: Jan. 3
NH Primary: Jan. 10
SC Primary: Jan. 21
FL Primary: Jan. 31

Analysis: Most candidates have converged on Iowa to make the most of the remaining weeks until the nations first caucus.
••••••••••

Upcoming Republican Debates:

•Date: December 10
•Place: Des Moines IA
•Sponsor: ABC News / Des Moines Register /
Iowa Republican Party

•Date: December 15
•Place: Sioux City, IA
•Sponsor: FOX News / Iowa Republican Party

•Date: December 27
•Place: Des Moines, IA
•Sponsor: Ion TV / Newsmax

Analysis: The debate on Dec. 10 will be the first one since Herman Cain dropped out of the race and Newt Gingrich will be the focus of attention. Mitt Romney will try to portray him as a longtime Washington insider and a former lobbyist. Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum will all toot their conservative credentials and contrast them with Gingrich's more liberal policies. Don't be surprised if Romney gets attacked as well for being a flip-flopper on many conservative principals, especially after we saw from the FOX interview how much this accusation gets under Romney's skin.
••••••••••

LATEST POLLS:

IOWA (31 Delegates)

Newt Gingrich 27%,
Ron Paul 18%,
Mitt Romney 16%,
Michele Bachmann 13%, Rick Perry 9%,
Rick Santorum 6%,
Jon Huntsman, Jr. 4%, Gary Johnson 1%,
Someone else/Not sure 7%

•Poll date: December 3-5, 2011
•Poll source: Public Policy Polling
•Margin of error: ±4.1% •Sample size: 572

Analysis: Gingrich's rise to the top in this staunchly conservative state has surprised many, but there's no telling if he has a large enough ground operation to turn his impressive poll numbers into a victory on election day. The poll numbers for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have pretty much remained steady for the past few months, seeming to indicate that the undecided voters and those that will break off from Gingrich, will end up dividing themselves amongst Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry. A poor showing in Iowa from any of the above mentioned threesome, could very well spell the end of their campaign.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (23 Delegates)

Mitt Romney 39%,
Newt Gingrich 23%,
Ron Paul 16%,
Jon Huntsman, Jr. 9%, Michele Bachmann 3%, Rick Perry 3%,
Herman Cain 2%,
Rick Santorum 1%, Undecided 4%

•Poll date: November 28-30, 2011
•Poll source: NBC News/Marist
•Margin of error: 3.7%
•Sample size: 696

Analysis: Romney is expected to win this primary for two main reasons. He's well known throughout NH since he was the Governor of neighboring Massachusetts, and the open primary system that allows independents to vote alongside republicans, is a major boost to the more moderate Romney. Gingrich and possibly Huntsman are the only ones with a real chance of defeating Romney in this primary. Conservative candidates have never done well in this primary, and there's no reason to believe this time will be any different. A poor showing by Huntsman will bring his campaign to an end.

Isi Leibler: FUROR DOWN UNDER

In June 2010, amid considerable controversy, an Australian branch of the New Israel Fund was launched by its president, former MK Naomi Chazan, who a few months earlier had been disinvited from an Australian Zionist speaking engagement because of controversies associated with the NIF.

In October, I wrote a critical review of the NIF, observing that while the majority of the organizations which were beneficiaries of more than $200 million in funds dispersed by the NIF were engaged in worthy welfare and developmental projects, vast funds were also being provided to groups engaged in campaigns to delegitimize Israel.

Foremost among these groups, I referred to Adala, which, in addition to promoting the Goldstone report, urged foreign governments “to re-evaluate their relationship with Israel," described Israel as "a colonial enterprise promoting apartheid," called for implementing the Palestinian right of return to Israel, provided affidavits to Spanish courts to charge Israeli officials with war crimes and defended a Hezbollah spy as a "human rights defender."

I also related to NIF-sponsored “Breaking the Silence," another organization that had paved the way for the Goldstone report.

Presumably in order to improve its image, the Australian NIF invited a prominent Israeli to promote its case to the Jewish community and Australian media. It made the disastrous blunder of selecting David Landau, a talented and articulate writer who has published a number of influential books, including the recent biography of David Ben-Gurion based on interviews with President Shimon Peres. The NIF also highlighted the fact that he was orthodox and a former yeshiva student.

However, Landau, a former editor of Haaretz, is renowned for promoting far Left views which the majority of Israelis would consider contemptible. He is the Israeli correspondent of The Economist which, to put it mildly, is unfriendly to Israel. He is also highly regarded by the BBC, which frequently interviews him.

Many Israelis still recollect that in September 2007, in the course of an intimate gathering at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, he informed then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "it has always been my wet dream to address the secretary of state” and suggested how to act in relation to Israel. He then went on to describe Israel as a politically "failed state" and urged the U.S. to impose a solution on Israel, telling Rice, “I implore you to intervene,” and adding that the government of Israel "wished to be raped." His remarks appeared in the media and created a considerable furor.

Last year, in the course of condemning the Knesset for its current controversial NGO legislation, Landau stated, "I call on parliaments throughout the democratic world and inter-parliamentary associations to boycott Israel's parliament, once the pride of the Jewish people, until it buries the bill and recovers its democratic heritage."

Australian Jews, a largely post-Holocaust community, are passionately Zionist and strongly committed to pro-Israel advocacy. Over the decades, they have succeeded in cultivating a climate of political bipartisanship and friendship toward Israel that is probably unique in the Western world. Their leaders have also maintained a tradition of avoiding public criticism of security policies adopted by the democratically elected government of Israel.

Many Jewish leaders were apprehensive that Landau would articulate his anti-government views to the Australian media. Danny Lamm, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, refused to meet or endorse him, and subsequently bitterly criticized some of his remarks to the media.

However, NIF Australia President Robin Margo seemed unconcerned that linking his organization with a person espousing such views would be counterproductive. In fact, when the West Australian Jewish community’s Director of Public Affairs, Steve Lieblich, circulated my article on the NIF and background information about Landau to his colleagues on the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Margo declined to refute the information and instead sought to intimidate him by threatening that he could be subject to legal action for “distributing grossly defamatory material." "I suggest you take legal advice," he told him.

In such an environment, one might have expected Landau to be cautious about expressing his more radical views. But in fact, he told the media that McCarthyism in Israel was rife and that "the poison of the occupation is seeping back and corroding our democracy… Local Jews needed to speak out instead of blindly toeing the government line."

He castigated settlers, alleging that they "resort to subterfuge to make life difficult for the Palestinians." As an example he claimed that “little settler boys" scattered drawing pins on the carpets of mosques. In a subsequent ABC interview, he conceded that his grandchildren lived over the Green Line, claiming that they were being brainwashed to discriminate against Arabs.

He also stated that Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage in Hebron in February 1994 was not the act of a man who had lost his senses but a calculated operation to "derail the Oslo Peace process."

At a breakfast meeting in Sydney, prefacing remarks endorsing the actions of the NIF-sponsored "Breaking the Silence,” Landau defamed the Israel Defense Forces.

He recounted how 25 years ago while on reserve duty in Hebron he had witnessed a fellow soldier committing an unspecified act of "bestiality” that tortured him to this day and that he had not yet confided to anyone, including his wife. One could of course ask him to explain why, after witnessing “bestial” acts committed by a fellow soldier, he failed to report the incident immediately to his commanding officer. And why should he raise this issue now, in such a vague and tortuous manner, in Australia of all places?

In fact, this vague charge of IDF “bestiality” was a prelude to Landau’s lauding the NIF-sponsored organization. BTS, created in 2004, paved the way for the Goldstone report by releasing unsubstantiated anonymous “testimony” from former Israeli soldiers accusing the IDF of war crimes that was plastered on the front pages of the global media. Although the claims were subsequently proven to be without substance, the damage was irreversible, and Israel came to be considered in many countries as a criminal state.

When the Goldstone commission compiled its despicable report -- from which Goldstone himself has now distanced himself -- BTS provided it with “evidence” of alleged Israeli war crimes.

In March this year, BTS hosted an exhibit in Sweden, introducing it with the statement: "We are the oppressors, we are the ones that are violating human rights on a daily basis. We are basically creating terror against us."

This is the organization whose budget the NIF tripled last year and whose spokesman told the Australian media and Jews that it represents the "conscience of our people."

The NIF is entitled to sponsor enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. But it should do so transparently, so that naive charitable donors are not duped into believing that their contributions are being utilized to transform Israel into a better society. It is surely also unconscionable for the local affiliate of the NIF to host an Israeli emissary who undermines the long-standing efforts of Australian community leaders to maintain strong bipartisan support for Israel.

Isi Leibler: ISLAMIC ASCENDANCY INTENSIFIES US APPEASEMENT

It is ironic that while President Barack Obama portrays himself as a friend of Israel and solicits funds from Jewish donors, two senior members of his team were providing chilling insights to what Israel may expect should the current administration be returned to office.

After reaffirming that the U.S. retains "an unshakable commitment to Israel's security,” U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta crudely told a Brookings Institution forum that it was high time for Israel to "get to the damn negotiating table.” He ignored the fact that even after a 10-month settlement freeze, the Palestinians had refused to engage in direct negotiations with Israelis. He went on to repeat the mindless mantra that Israel is "partly" responsible for its diplomatic isolation. He demanded that Israel take further bold action to overcome the conflict with the Palestinians by making additional unilateral concessions which the Arabs would no doubt take on board in the context of their long-term strategy to dismantle the Jewish state in stages.

He demanded that Israel "reach out to mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability,” specifically mentioning Turkey and Egypt. Here, he also he failed to take account of Israel's extraordinary efforts to retain good relations with Egypt, which is currently in the process of being taken over by jihadist groups and disregarded the fact that Erdogan’s Turkey is now openly allied with the genocidal Hamas. For a U.S. defense secretary to implicitly blame Israel for the erosion of relations with these countries is simply inexplicable.

In the same speech, he warned Israel that if it acted alone in relation to Iran, it would place America in an unenviable position, cost many lives and lead to global economic chaos. As former Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams observed, Panetta eased Iranian concerns by effectively nullifying long-standing American statements that "all options are on the table" to curb the nuclear threat.

A defense secretary does not make such statements unless he has the backing of his president.

Panetta’s provocative address was followed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pontificated on Israel as a democratic state and harshly criticized proposed legislation restricting the foreign funding of non-governmental organizations. While this has generated considerable controversy in Israel, it is unprecedented for an American secretary of state to become involved in such a debate and publicly criticize the government of a purportedly close ally. Especially when one considers that Clinton has hardly been forthright in condemning human rights violations and vile anti-Semitic outbursts displayed in Muslim countries or by groups who are emerging as the new dominant forces in such countries.

Even more disconcerting were Clinton’s remarks concerning a marginal number of misguided Israeli soldiers who sought to boycott events in which female singers participated. This issue and the clumsy manner in which it was handled by the Israel Defense Forces has admittedly distressed many Israelis. But what justifies an American secretary of state who says nothing about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries becoming involved in this? And to make an analogy of this episode with the segregation of African-Americans in the 1950s does not merely reflect ignorance, but is downright offensive. Clinton even said that this Israeli behavior reminded her of the way Iranians treated women.

Finally, the Jewish U.S. Ambassador in Belgium, Howard Gutman, appointed to the role because he was a major fundraiser for Obama, tells European Jewish leaders and lawyers that "a distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” The clear innuendo was that Muslim anti-Semitism is a byproduct of Israeli intransigence in the Middle East, and therefore can be understood and implicitly justified. These sickening remarks were made by a U.S. ambassador to Belgium, one of the most anti-Israeli countries in Europe.

These outbursts signal that despite favorable public opinion and congressional support, Israel continues to face hostility and difficulties from the U.S. administration.

The timing of these provocative outbursts makes them especially reprehensible. They occurred concurrently with the election results from Egypt, which confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood, combined with the even more extreme Salafis, emerged with 60 percent of the vote, reflecting the radical Islamist tide sweeping through all the North African Arab states.

In fact, our worst fears have been realized, and Israel is now surrounded by a ring of fanatically hostile Islamic states. The Muslim Brotherhood, creator of Hamas, is an outright jihadist organization whose charter unequivocally calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews.

In this context, it is exasperating and sickening to continue to be subject to delusionary spins by Western politicians and liberal media suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood has turned a new page, is now tolerant and, to quote some U.S. administration officials, is even in the process of becoming "secular.” In addition, the only issue over which Sunnis and Shiites have been able to overcome their passionate differences is their frenzied shared hatred of Israel and dissemination of anti-Semitic propaganda indistinguishable from the vilest Nazi propaganda.

Yet, in the Islamic grand order, Israel and the Jews are merely the "canary in the mine" and represent a minor component of their global ambitions. Were Israel to disappear from the map or succumb to Islamic aggression, far from easing tensions, this would merely embolden Islamists towards their goal of conquering Europe and, ultimately, global domination.

Israel can do little to influence the course of events in the Arab countries, and its leaders have wisely stood aside. But it is surely now time for the Obama administration to recognize that its policies of appeasement have led to disastrous consequences. Instead of trying to mollify Islamists by distancing themselves and making one-sided criticisms against Israel, they should gird themselves for a long-term struggle against fanatical Islamists who have been conditioned into believing that they can best achieve their global objectives through intransigence and intensification of violence.

American Jews can make an important contribution in this area. Yet, alas, most of their leaders remained silent despite the reprehensible remarks directed against Israel by leading Obama administration officials. While, not surprisingly, the Zionist Organization of America, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Jewish Republicans protested, so far of the Jewish establishment leaders only Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League actually condemned Leon Panetta’s remarks. The principal American Jewish agencies responded with deafening silence. One is even tempted to enquire whether they have in fact collectively decided not to rock the boat and to eliminate Israeli issues from political discourse. How else can one explain the absence of response to such provocations? Which leads us to ask, will Jews at the grassroots level remain satisfied that their principal spokesmen remain silent on such issues?

Isi Leibler: THE ASSAULT AGAINST JEWISH JERUSALEM

The ongoing pressures exerted against construction in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem such as Gilo reflect intensified global efforts to redivide the city. Like many aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the issue of Jerusalem is being reviewed in a vacuum, without relationship to the reality on the ground. This overlooks the abominable restrictions on freedom of worship in East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, when the city was under Jordanian control. Jewish holy sites, including the 2,000-year-old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, were desecrated and the tombstones were used to build latrines, and all 58 synagogues in the Old City, including the ancient Hurva synagogue, were razed to the ground.

The uninhibitedly anti-Semitic Jordanian military governor of the Old City, Abdulla el Tal, proudly proclaimed that, "For the first time in 1,000 years, not a single Jew remains in the Jewish quarter … and as not a single building remains intact, this makes the return of the Jews here impossible." Christians were also maltreated, with more than 60 percent of them leaving Jerusalem during that period.

Yet, since the reunification of the city in 1967 following Israel’s defeat of the combined Arab assault, complete freedom of religion was immediately extended to all citizens of Jerusalem. In addition, universities, hospitals and social service facilities provided absolutely equal services to Jew and Arab alike. One need only visit any of the major hospitals in Jerusalem to verify the extraordinary high standard of health benefits that unification provided for Arab residents.

Ironically, Jews today are the ones being discriminated against by their own government in their own capital. In 1967, immediately after the liberation of Jerusalem, Moshe Dayan effectively handed over the keys of the Temple Mount to the Waqf, the Muslim religious authority, which has retained total control and jurisdiction over this extensive area, which includes the holiest Jewish site in the world. It proved to be a disastrous blunder. The situation was further aggravated by the rabbinate, which on Halachic grounds, prohibited Jews from visiting the holy site. However, today many national religious rabbis maintain that Jews are entitled to visit most of the area and even consider it a mitzvah to pray there.

On a recent visit to the Temple Mount, I was astonished to observe the bizarre spectacle of Jews being bundled off by Israeli police in cooperation with the Waqf for quietly engaging in private prayer. I was informed that some Jews who were seen praying are permanently prohibited from visiting the area. This is scandalous. For Israeli police to deny Jews the right to pray at their holiest site in their own capital because it offends Moslem sensitivities is surely outrageous. It amounts to practicing inverse discrimination, denying the same freedom of worship to our own people which we take pride in guaranteeing to others.

This chaotic arrangement also provided fuel to Palestinians to initiate a massive exercise in historical revisionism in order to bolster their false narrative. They are now frenziedly attempting to deny the Jewish links to Jerusalem and make the preposterous allegation that the Jewish relationship to Jerusalem was effectively a Zionist fabrication designed to justify the “invasion” of Palestine. It is a form of revisionism no less obscene than Holocaust denial and has emerged as a central tenet of hostile Palestinian nationalism.

As late as the 1930s, even Muslim Council guidebooks identified Solomon's Temple on the site. It is only since 1954 that such references have been expunged. In 2000, at the Camp David meeting, Yasser Arafat stunned U.S. President Bill Clinton by declaring that “Solomon's Temple was not in Jerusalem, but in Nablus." On another occasion he said it was in Yemen. Others, like Palestinian Authority spokesman Saeb Erekat, alleged that “the issue of the Temple … is a Jewish invention lacking any basis."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas now repeatedly dismisses any Jewish link to the Holy Land, and the authority’s Information Ministry website describes the Jewish connection to Jerusalem as a “biblical myth." Sari Nusseibeh claimed, "The historical ties and attachments of the Palestinians precede any Israeli claim to Jerusalem."

These expressions were recently extended to even include denial of a Jewish link to the Western Wall. Only last week, Ahmed Al-Tayib, the Sheik of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the principal global religious authority for Sunni Muslims, warned that the continued “Judaization” of Jerusalem, which he claimed had originally been constructed by Arabs, would result in the annihilation of “the Zionist entity in Palestine."

In addition, we are witnessing a systematic ongoing course of wanton destruction in which bulldozers have been employed on the Temple Mount by the Palestinian Waqf to eliminate ancient Jewish archaeological evidence and yet, despite protests and expressions of outrage from most Israeli archaeologists, the government has refused to intervene.

The links of the Jewish people to Jerusalem are at the very core of our national and spiritual history and identity. For more than 2,000 years of exile we yearned and prayed for a return to Jerusalem, and since 1800 Jews have constituted the majority of the population of Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that Yitzhak Rabin's last speech before his assassination pledged to the Knesset that Jerusalem would never again be divided.

Yet the sad truth is that in addition to condemning any construction in Jewish Jerusalem as “undermining the peace process," neither the U.S. nor the Europeans have even recognized Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. There is no doubt that if any areas of Jerusalem were ever to fall under Palestinian jurisdiction, the despicable discriminatory practices applied by the Jordanians until 1967 would be reintroduced. Abbas has already publicly proclaimed that not a single Jew would be permitted to live in any future Palestinian state.

It is also inconceivable that neighborhoods like Ramot, Gilo, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and Givat Zeev would ever be cut off from Israel. No power could evacuate more than 100,000 Jews from these areas.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel allegedly criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently over the announcement of new construction in Gilo, but in view of her personal Berlin background she should be sensitive to the highly negative aspects of dividing a city. Although it will never happen, greater autonomy and allocation of municipal duties could be extended to Arabs in areas in which they comprise the majority of inhabitants.

Interestingly, a recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion demonstrated that 59 percent of Arab residents in Jerusalem were satisfied with their standard of living and that the majority strongly objected to dividing the city and living under Palestinian jurisdiction. In fact, as many as 40% stated that if the city was divided, they would prefer to move to an Israeli neighborhood rather than fall under the authority of the corrupt Palestinian Authority and possibly eventually find themselves under Hamas control.
•••••••••
The writer can be reached at ileibler@netvision.net.il. His website is www.wordfromjerusalem.com.